Human Rights Obligations of States in the Context of Climate Change

The Human Rights Committee (CCPR) is increasingly linking climate change to human rights obligations under the ICCPR, particularly the right to life. In 2018, General Comment No. 36 established that climate change and environmental degradation are serious threats to the right to life, creating a due diligence obligation for States to take reasonable positive measures against foreseeable threats. In 2019, the CCPR began issuing climate-related recommendations to States, including Cabo Verde, and addressing climate issues in lists of issues for the United States and Dominica. In the case of Teitiota v New Zealand, the Committee acknowledged that climate change impacts could trigger non-refoulement obligations if they violate the right to life, though the specific petition was rejected. Additionally, a pending case involves Torres Strait Islanders against Australia, alleging that failure to mitigate emissions and adapt to climate change violates their rights to life and culture.

• General Comment No. 36, adopted in 2018, identifies climate change, environmental degradation, and unsustainable development as some of the most critical threats to the right to life for current and future generations. It establishes that States have a due diligence obligation to implement reasonable positive measures to address foreseeable threats to life caused by private entities or persons not attributable to the State.
• In 2019, the CCPR began integrating climate change into its state reporting procedure. It issued a climate recommendation to Cabo Verde, urging the small island state to implement environmental standards, conduct impact assessments, and use the precautionary approach. The Committee also addressed climate change in its Lists of Issues for the United States, Dominica, and Cabo Verde, primarily relating to the right to life, though for Dominica it also cited the right to privacy, family, and home (article 17) and the right to vote and take part in public affairs (article 25).
• In the case of Teitiota v New Zealand, the CCPR accepted that Kiribati would become uninhabitable in 10-15 years due to sea level rise and acknowledged that climate change impacts could violate the right to life and trigger State obligations not to deport individuals. While the specific petition was rejected, the Committee noted that New Zealand must consider updated climate data in future deportation cases.
• A pending communication against Australia, filed in May 2019 by Torres Strait Islanders, alleges that the State's failure to reduce emissions and provide adequate adaptation measures violates their rights to life (article 6) and culture (article 27). The petitioners argue that climate-induced sea level rise and coastal erosion threaten their homes, food and water sources, and cultural sites, potentially forcing displacement to mainland Australia.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). Human Rights Obligations of States in the Context of Climate Change. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CCPR.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Human Rights Obligations of States in the Context of Climate Change. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CCPR.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Human Rights Obligations of States in the Context of Climate Change |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CCPR.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndhuman, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Human Rights Obligations of States in the Context of Climate Change}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CCPR.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }